God, Guns & the GOP

America is in a state of crisis. Its economy is tanking, forcing a $700 billion government bailout. Its military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned into a massive boondoggle, burning a hole in taxpayers' pockets at a rate of at least $10 billion per month. On the home front, 9.2% of mortgage borrowers are either behind in their payments or are in foreclosure. Gasoline, which was at $1.50 a gallon when the Iraq War began, is now hovering around $3.70. In 2001, when George Bush took office, the federal government ran a surplus of $127 billion. The budget deficit for 2008 is expected to be $407 billion. The Republicans, who have held the reins of Executive power for the last eight years, are largely the authors of this mess. They launched the war in Iraq on the basis of a series of false claims, sat back as the housing and credit bubbles swelled to absurd proportions, championed the deregulation of the financial industry, and showered the wealthy upper crust with generous tax cuts at the same time as the jobs of average Americans were being outsourced and their standard of living was declining.

In a normal, functioning democracy, the Republicans would be bracing themselves for a complete rout in the November elections. The Democrats would win overwhelming victories in the Senate and the House, and Obama would ride a wave of mass disgust into the White House. The chief authors of America’s downfall would be publicly shamed, and some might even be criminally investigated. In the UK, which is afflicted with many of the same problems that plague America – a faltering financial sector, sagging property market, and the fallout from overseas military adventurism - former Prime Minister Tony Blair was forced to step down and the opposition Conservatives enjoy a 28 point lead in the polls over the ruling Labour Party. In 1993, when the Canadian economy was in recession and the national debt was growing out of control, the ruling Progressive Conservative Party, which had signed the controversial NAFTA agreement and instituted an unpopular national sales tax, was virtually wiped out. Its numbers were reduced from 155 seats in the House of Commons to 2. Prime Minister Kim Campbell suffered the ultimate in parliamentary humiliation with the loss of her own seat.

The US, however, is clearly not a normal democracy. A majority of its electorate don’t seem to vote according to rational motives such as economic self interest, disgust with entrenched corruption and mismanagement, anger at the lack of affordable medical care, concern over a failed foreign policy, and revulsion at the profiteering of the corporate elite. Many within the vast heartland of America will continue to vote Republican solely on the basis of their "values", values which seemingly have very little to do with peace, good governance, and prosperity for all. On the contrary, the biggest problems facing America, according to these "values voters", are abortion, gun control, and other liberal abominations such as stem cell research and gay marriage. Never mind the blatant moral hypocrisy of the holier-than-thou Republicans, a string of whom have been caught up in sleazy sex, drugs and corruption scandals over the past 8 years. No, come November the values voters will put on their crosses and do what they always do: vote Republican. That is to say, they'll vote for the guy, or gal, who thumps the Bible with one hand while giving them the shaft with the other.

Sarah Palin: A New Twist in the Mommy Wars

Sarah Palin’s appointment as John McCain's vice presidential running mate presents an amusing twist in the otherwise tedious moral debate about working mothers. As both a highly ambitious career woman and a family oriented Christian conservative, Palin embodies two typically contradictory forces within contemporary American society. Not surprisingly, keeping those two forces in balance is proving to be a difficult task. The fact is, from the perspective of the Conservative family values she espouses, Palin falls disastrously short of the ideal mother who in all cases puts her family first. Her failings as a caring Christian mother are pretty substantial: she hid her pregnancy for seven months out of fear that Alaskans would doubt her capacity to juggle the role of new mother and governor; while attending an energy conference in Texas she experienced complications with her pregnancy, but instead of heading for the nearest hospital, she soldiered on and gave a speech before flying back to Alaska, potentially putting the well-being of her unborn child at risk; just three days after giving birth to her son Trig, who has special needs, she returned to work (this is considered especially damning); she is alleged to have had an affair with her husband's former business partner; and with her acceptance of the vice presidential nomination, she has exposed her pregnant and unmarried 17 year old daughter to the harsh glare of the media.

None of this seems to matter to her militant Christian supporters who, in their enthusiasm for Palin’s straight talkin', down home, pro-life politics, seem to have forgotten their trenchant support for the stay-at-home, home-schooling mother ideal as quickly as they forgot about their former megachurch star pastor, homosexual crystal meth user Ted Haggard. At the other end of the political spectrum, liberal feminists view Palin with a mixture of revulsion and bemusement. While they clearly have major problems with Palin’s politics, most defend her decision to run for VP, even while delighting in the obvious hypocrisy of it. And they rightly point out the sexual double standard that exists: Palin’s familial responsibilities would not even be an issue if she were a man.

What is most interesting about all this, however, is that much of the criticism of Palin’s choices is actually coming from other women: average, less ideologically driven women, many of them working mothers themselves, who think she is taking on too much and that, as a result, her family is going to suffer. They are not critical of her overall ambitions, and they have no use for the home-schooling mother ideal, but they insist that given the particular circumstances of Palin’s family at this point in time, her running for vice president is incredibly selfish and shortsighted. As a contributor to ABC’s news site explained: “I'm not saying that a mom can't raise her children and work. I work and like most other women, constantly struggle with the balance of my career and work schedule and my children's school and activity schedules. I'm just saying that as a mother, we sometimes have to make the CHOICE to put our children's needs first and our career aspirations on hold. Sarah Palin is very selfish to be putting her career aspirations above and beyond all other members of her family. It would have been perfectly acceptable for her to say 'thanks, but no thanks' to Senator McCain's offer. She is obviously a brilliant politician and has a successful career ahead of her; but it's not time for her to be a politician right now, it's time for her to be a mother.” It is exactly these sort of women that Palin will have to win over if McCain's Veep pick is to ultimately prove wise.

Manifest Abusurdity

One of the more curious things in the typically American effusion of hype, hero-worship and fulsome patriotic rhetoric that surrounds the Obama presidential campaign is the creation of the Manifest Hope Gallery in Denver, 10 000 square feet of temporary space exhibiting an array of images of the Chosen One. Sponsored by MoveOn, Manifest Hope celebrates the role that artists play in creating cultural momentum. It features works by “some of the finest modern contemporary artists, acclaimed NY painters and sculptors, activated grass roots and street artists”. The idea of art creating cultural momentum is all well and good, but in this instance the art is nothing more than trite political propaganda. There is no critical distance, no irony or edginess in these depictions of Obama. They present the same messianic figure that Democrats, desperate to wrest the reins of government back from the Republicans, have rallied around.

The winning submissions simply repeat the slogans and themes of the campaign: hope, unity, change. “Obama/Hope 08”, by Shel Starkman, depicts a profile of a thoughtful Obama in patriotic colors overlayed on the word “HOPE”. It’s a fairly pleasing image that would make a good campaign poster. It sold on Ebay for $3550. “Unite America” by Larrissa Brown presents a cartoonish floating head of Obama in the form of a puzzle being put together by average American types: a farmer, a business woman, a homemaker, a student. The image gets even more muddled because Obama’s face, which is not even a particularly good likeness of the candidate, is tattooed with an image of the American flag. “Yearning” features a collection of multi-ethnic hands reaching up to some celestial light source, which might be shining out of Obama’s ...? It should appeal to connoisseurs of the air-brushed Jesus genre. It fetched $1550 on Ebay.

The only art work that I actually like is “Barack-in-the-Box”, a hand-painted wooden box with a smiling polymer image of Obama that pops out of it to the tune of “You Light up my Life”. The outside of the box is decorated with flowers and the usual slogans. Barack-in-the-Box’s naive, folksy charm works with the campaign clichés and the Disneyesque version of reality that Americans find so appealing. It presents Obama as a sort of cross between a hyperactive salesman and a well-meaning, energetic and approachable man of the people. Will his beaming smile and endless cliches charm the masses? Will hope and change win out over war, vengeance and delusions of imperial grandeur? Don't count on it.